UK captives tell of ill treatment

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone



Yeah only thing is the MoD is controlling anything that the sailors say to the media...

Yes we realize that but you have yet to prove that MOD is actually controlling anything. Yes you are saying it is so, but we need collaboration from other sources.

Edit to add I see now My first request for proof never made it so I apologize for saying you have yet to prove it. What I want to ask is kindly prove your point sorry for the error

[edit on 4/8/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by shots



Yes we realize that but you have yet to prove that MOD is actually controlling anything. Yes you are saying it is so, but we need collaboration from other sources.

Edit to add I see now My first request for proof never made it so I apologize for saying you have yet to prove it. What I want to ask is kindly prove your point sorry for the error

I got this from the MoD website oks ya cancheck it if ya wants...

It was therefore decided to grant permission to speak to the media to those personnel that sought it, in order to ensure that the Navy and the MOD had sight of what they were going to say – as well as providing proper media support to the sailors and Marines in the same way as would have been the case in more ordinary circumstances.

See its quoted on their website that they would see what the sailors were going to say before they even spoke to the media...

SOURCE

[edit on 8-4-2007 by spencerjohnstone]

Well that would not be the way something like that would be stated here, but since it is the queens English I will take your word for it.

Originally posted by shots
There were other reports that stated similar accounts however in no way did they imply it was imaginary as you contend.

Royal Marine Joe Tindell said he came to believe one of his colleagues had been executed on the second day of their ordeal.

.......

"We had a blindfold and plastic cuffs, hands behind our backs, heads against the wall. ... There were weapons cocking," Tindell told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. "Someone said, I quote: 'Lads, lads, I think we're going to get executed.' ...

BBC News



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Both accounts above sure do not sound like exaggeration to me :shk:

I'm trying to say what I saw live on Sky news straight from one of the marines interviews, prior to the conference. It was very similar to what I quoted, if not exactly the same. You can think alot of things when under stress but it does not mean that it's going to happen, which it didn't. Maybe this one marine had a particularly cool head?

Could someone verify this please?

I'll see if I can find it...

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Xeros]

There is no moral high ground here. We're not better or worse than them, we're the same.

The UK marines were lucky. It could have been much worse.

Whatever the iranian motivations are, that simple fact is true, it could have been much worse, and with our own atrocious records on foreign detainees, seriously, we have no leg to stand on.

Whatever the iranian motivations are, that simple fact is true, it could have been much worse, and with our own atrocious records on foreign detainees, seriously, we have no leg to stand on.



What horrible things have the UK troops done recently? Are you lumping them in with the US and Gitmo and Abu Gharib? Why? Condoning one's behaviour because of what a third nation does is hardly a sound policy IMO.

Originally posted by pavil
Whatever the iranian motivations are, that simple fact is true, it could have been much worse, and with our own atrocious records on foreign detainees, seriously, we have no leg to stand on.

What horrible things have the UK troops done recently? Are you lumping them in with the US and Gitmo and Abu Gharib? Why? Condoning one's behaviour because of what a third nation does is hardly a sound policy IMO.



Weren't they coalition forces? If so, then I can see why they would lump us in with the US. Iran is p*ssed that the 'coalition of the willing' invaded Iraq, i'm sure they wouldn't mind associating Britain with whatever goes on there.

Doesn't Iran like the coalition forces going into Iraq?

I thought Iran hated Sadaam's regime and celebrated their former enemy's execution. The coalition did Iran a favor by taking out Sadaam, something they've probably been trying to do for years. Iran is now aligned with the new U.S. installed Iraq regime.

There two sides to the story of the british 'captives'. And I believe both sides are using the media to manipulate people for either good or bad reasons. How do we know for sure either side is tellng the whole truth? Just because CNN or BBC reports it to be true? Mainstream media can not be trusted. The Iranians that I've spoken with tell me they don't have anything against the U.S. or Britain.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by curiousbeliever]

I'd like talk about this thread itself.

This thread leaves the readers no choice.

I'm not kidding "who believes parading and gun cocking sounds are a proper way of treating captives?"
- "Nobody." (generally

So when we got the starter of this thread
1. wanting a debate(not sure on this)
2. but also demanding to stay within the boundaries of this thread
.... which leads to only one conclusion. Which could be "Evil Iranians"
Then what is there to talk about?

This article has a character which can be easily used to support the interests of the Bush administration and UK. So it needs to be examined carefully considering the different interests of the countries that are involved or could get involved in, in the future.

But while this thread stays within it's boundaries as a "Right or Wrong" issue, (which is a very romantic story considering the way politics are run on a global level) This thread is nothing worth than a news article.
There is noting to debate.

Some members wrote, it wasn't too harsh, but they also don't agree on such treatment.
Some members mentioned the brutal treatment given to the prisoners in Gitmo, but they also don't agree on such treatment to the UK captives.
Nobody has said "yes" to such treatments.
Unfortunatley a lot posts seem to get out of the subject. But everybody seems to agree that it was wrong.

It wouldn't be a bad thread if the starter would have tried some traffic control within the posts while maintaining an open view. But instead of doing that the starter chose a side so this is what we got. Nothing.
Just wild reactions.

The thread needs to stay in the news article. Not in the ATS.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by frenzy_boy]

Originally posted by Inannamute
First comment - to those people saying that Iran ignores UN sanctions, that's hardly condemning, considering that the US ignores UN sanctions and policies, and regularly is the only hold out on otherwise unanimous votes.

Secondly, if you were under constant threat by say, a corrupt policeman. Every day, he came over to your house, held a gun to your head and said "One day, one day I'm going to fire"..

Would you (a) sit around meekly waiting for the day or (b) go buy your own gun?

With the constant threat of US/UK attacks on Iran, surely the only option they have is actually to continue nuclear proliferation, in the hope that by becoming a nuclear power, they have some degree of safety. This is a situation in which neither side has clean hands, so it is useless to condemn either one or the other as being "the bad guys who did this"..

Should the UK personnel have been captured? Probably not. Should they have been in Iranian waters? Probably not, if they were. Should they have been in Iraqi waters? Probably not. The situation in iraq is a massive blunder, and by now escalating conflict and tensions with Iran, the situation only gets worse, not better.


If we are to cite UN resolutions and sanctions, surely they should be applied across the board?.

The concept of a great freedom surely holds all men and women accountable and responsible for their actions, from the lowest and poorest to the richest and most powerful. Just "because we are american, and the ultimate superpower, and no-one can really oppose us" is NOT justification. Nor is "protecting our citizens from terrorism by engaging in prophylactic war".. War in Iraq makes US citizens less safe, not more so.

If you ever have questions about the morality of the US versus any other nation on earth, consider that the only nation to vote against the UN charter on the rights of a child was the US.

The US being the only nation that allows execution of children, specifically prohibited in that charter.

We will never know truly what happened in many situations, including that of these captives, but to assume that Iran is lying and the UK is telling the truth, solely because of who they are is to ignore centuries of history.

Good insight

Political aspects need to be recognized


[edit on 15-4-2007 by frenzy_boy]

With photos on today's news of an Iraqi beaten to death by UK Forces in '03 I think we should avoid the gitmo / worse than gitmo moral high ground - at least us Brits should.

A few points:

The news management on this incident has made UK Forces look pretty damned stupid. Did the Marines captured when Argentina invaded the Falklands complain about being made to lie on the floor and having guns pointed at them? - no they gritted their teeth and waited for payback at a later date, came back and gave the Oppo the 'good news' (7.62 NATO variety).

I doubt many nations will in future quake at the prospect of Mr Bean & his ipod-toting mates ambling up the beach.

I suspect the current fashion for Marines not having big mustaches has something to do with it but the UK Sec of Defence (AKA TCBe) has a lot to answer for. Although it's all his fault he's obviously not going to resign

For me a lot of this is just a smoke screen to divert attention from the real issue - what was the mother ship doing to allow the IRG to sneak up on the patrol? - I suspect that there's an issue with some of the systems on the ship which meant they didn't see them / couldn't react.

The fact that weapons systems are not being repaired on RN ships - budget diverted to items relating to health & safety apparently - has been doing the rounds on the web for a few months now. UK Military forums have been full of this and some RN personnel have 'stretched' Op Sec to confirm this.

Basically the big ship was a bluff, the Iranians called the bluff and won the hand - these ops have now been suspended as (maybe) the ship's a busted flush.

000's of years of tradition and a few hundred Brits biffing Johnny Foreigner & stealing their country destroyed by inadequate budget & a sound bite

Britannia RIP

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
Mistreatment is went you anre beaten or fingers are ripped off in order to gain information. Iran did none of this. Thats my 2cents.

Well, I disagree. What you describe as "mistreatment" would be considered "torture" based on such regulations as the language of the Geneva Convention. Prisoners at Abu Graib and Gitmo where also considered criminals and enemy combatants, but there treatment or mistreatment was made a liberal outcry for humane treatment.

I'll return a penny for your thoughts, and deposit the other one into the make intelligent choices pool.

reply to post by PhilltFred


Um, PhillitFred? Were you feeling nostalgic?
I'm just wondering why you revived a half year old dead thread in current events.

Either way...

Looking back on these events, reminds me of how amazingly well the Iranians treated their prisoners... meanwhile, we here in the western world have been defecating on ours, electrocuting them, etc.

Compared to Guantanamo, being captured in Iran must seem like a 5 star hotel.